Communication Characteristics of Recommended and Non‐Recommended Nutrition Books

This research was undertaken to examine how “recommended” and “non‐recom mended” nutrition books differ in terms of message content and writing style. Seventeen nutrition books were classified into either a “recommended” or “non‐recommended” category according to specified criteria. Several characteristics of each type of book were ex amined: authors' credentials and qualifications for writing in the field of nutrition, persuasibility of message content (determined primarily by content analysis procedures), writing style as determined by the type of sentences used, readability analyses, and exam ination of the structural appearance and characteristics of the books. The results showed that there were essentially no differences in regard to the authors' credentials or the structural characteristics of the books themselves. The most salient finding was that “non‐recommended” books were more likely to use fear arousing appeals and more emotional, personal referents. In terms of writing style, the authors of “non‐rec ommended” books used more personal interpretation and subjective opinions, while the writers of the “recommended” books contained more factual statements which report verifiable information. The “recommended” books scored slightly higher on “reading ease” and the “non‐recommended” books slightly higher on “human interest,” but both types of books seemed to present information in an interesting style but at a reading level that could be described as “fairly difficult.”